Buffalo River Watershed Alliance
Arkansas environmental officials did not sufficiently inform C&H Hog Farms or the public about its permitting process or decision-making about the farm, the farmers' attorney argued in a court hearing Monday.
But the state didn't have to do what C&H says it should have, the officials' attorneys contend.
The Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission's administrative law judge said he will rule in the coming weeks on motions to dismiss arguments made in C&H Hog Farms' appeal over being denied a new operating permit.
The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and C&H has filed a request for partial summary judgment finding that it still has an active federal permit and that the department improperly failed to seek public comment on its denial of C&H's permit.
The commission serves as the department's appellate body.
Judge Charles Moulton also asked attorneys for C&H to file a motion to split their claims into two cases, and he said he would rule after that.
The case currently concerns claims made about two regulations that control hog farms: Regulation 5 (state no-discharge permits that all hog farms other than C&H are covered under) and Regulation 6 (the state's program for issuing federal discharge permits). "Discharge" refers to whether waste is allowed to leave the property, not including being applied to land as fertilizer elsewhere.
C&H, in Mount Judea on Big Creek, a Buffalo River tributary, had a Reg. 6 general permit, a type of permit the department no longer issues. That permit expired Oct. 31, 2016. Farm owners applied for a Reg. 5 permit in April 2016, before the department decided to discontinue the other permitting program. The department denied that application in January, and the farmers applied for a Reg. 6 individual permit last month.
At Monday's hearing, C&H attorney Chuck Nestrud argued that the department should have sent out a public notice of intent to deny C&H's permit before issuing its final denial decision.
Nestrud said the department is required to issue a notice of its draft decision on a permit and wondered if events would have turned out differently if C&H had been given a draft notice of denial and been able supplement its application with what the department said had been lacking.
The department denied C&H Hog Farms an operating permit in part because the operation did not conduct a study on the flow direction of groundwater or develop an emergency action plan, according to the department's responses to public comments on the permit application.
Department attorney Stacie Wassell said the department issued a draft permit decision to the public before accepting the public comments that eventually changed the department's mind. She said nothing in the department's regulations state that the department needs to issue a second draft permit decision.
Richard Mays, attorney for intervenor Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, agreed with Wassell.
Moulton said case law submitted by Nestrud examining the issue did not appear to mirror the situation discussed Monday.
"I wish there was some law on it, because I can't find any," he said.
Nestrud also contended Monday that the department did not tell C&H when it needed to apply for a permit renewal or give notice that it would discontinue the Reg. 6 general permitting program. So C&H's permit is active until the department issues a new permit, he said.
The department notified C&H that it would discontinue the program in an undated letter. The department lists that letter on its website as having been delivered May 3, 2016, about two weeks after C&H applied to renew its permit and about four weeks after C&H applied for a Reg. 5 permit.
Nestrud said that was not sufficient because it did not adequately declare that the program was ending.
Attorneys for the department said they complied with all notice procedures.
NW News on 05/02/2018
Print Headline: Hog farm critical of new-permit denial
By Emily Walkenhorst
Posted: April 30, 2018 at 4:30 a.m.
NWAOnline
A hearing this morning will give parties a chance to make their arguments about whether C&H Hog Farms was improperly denied a new operating permit by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality.
A full trial on C&H Hog Farms' appeal of its permit denial is set for August, but today's hearing will allow the department and the farm's owners to argue their separate motions for dismissal and partial judgment, respectively, in the case.
C&H Hog Farms sits on Big Creek, about 6 miles from where the creek drains into the Buffalo National River. The farm has more than 6,500 pigs, and is the only federally classified medium or large hog farm in the area.
The Department of Environmental Quality has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and C&H Hog Farms has filed a motion for partial summary judgment declaring that the farm still has an active federal permit. C&H Farms also asked the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission, which is the Environmental Quality Department's appellate body, to dismiss the department's motion.
C&H's appeal, upon which the rest of the motions are based, asks that the commission find that the department's denial of its permit was improper.
The department filed its motion to dismiss the company's appeal at the end of March, arguing that it has the legal authority to deny a permit and that it went through the proper procedure for public participation and issuance of a decision as set out in state environmental regulations.
C&H contended in its February appeal that the department did not follow procedures because the department did not issue notice that it would terminate the type of permit under which C&H had been operating. The department argued that the permit type had expired and was not terminated.
In its motion for partial summary judgment filed in March, C&H contended that its permit remains active because the department's decision to deny a different type of permit did not end its coverage, and because the department did not properly terminate that type of permit or notify the company of that decision.
C&H responded April 18 to the department's motion to dismiss and repeated its argument that the department had not ended the company's coverage under its current permit because the department did not properly notify the company of its termination of the permit type. The company also argued that the department's motion to dismiss did not identify which "permitting" decision it believed was subject to C&H's appeal.
Administrative Law Judge Charles Moulton ordered April 20 that the groups argue their points at today's hearing, noting that "the parties have filed a number of motions that are presently pending" in the appeal case.
The hearing is at 10 a.m. at the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality's headquarters at 5301 Northshore Drive in North Little Rock.
by Erica Hellerstein
April 26, 2018
In a landmark decision, the jury ruling on the first of twenty-six nuisance cases against pork-producer Murphy-Brown LLC awarded the plaintiffs damages of more than $50 million. The case, which went to the jury yesterday afternoon, was the first in a series of federal lawsuits filed by neighbors of hog farms against Murphy-Brown LLC, a subsidiary of the Chinese-owned global food giant Smithfield Foods. The plaintiffs argue that the company's waste-management practices, which consist of storing excess hog waste in open-air cesspools behind hog pens and then liquefying and spraying the remains onto nearby fields, has made their lives miserable. Among other things, they say that the odors and mist from the spray drift onto their property; that the hogs attract swarms of flies, buzzards, and gnats; that boxes filled with rotting dead hogs produce an especially pungent stink; and that the stench has limited their ability to go outside. The trial involved ten plaintiffs who live near Kinlaw Farm, a large-scale hog operation in Bladen County that contracts with Murphy-Brown to raise about 15,000 hogs. In an email, Michelle Nowlin, the supervising attorney for the Environmental Law and Policy Clinic at Duke Law and the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University, called the verdict “a significant victory for the community members who live next to these factory feedlots. They have suffered indescribable insults, not just from the immediate impacts of the feedlots themselves, but also from decades of government failure to come to their aid. Litigation was their last chance for justice, and this verdict and award will help them move forward. “This verdict proves, once and for all, that ‘cheap meat’ is a myth. Someone pays the price of production, and for far too long, that burden has been on the rural communities that are home to North Carolina’s factory farms. This verdict forces the industry to internalize and reckon with those costs. I’m hopeful this decisive victory will be a game-changer in North Carolina and force the industry to modernize its waste-treatment, to the benefit of rural communities, the environment, and the farmers themselves.” The N.C. Pork Council could not immediately be reached for comment. In a statement attributed to senior vice president Keira Lombardo, Smithfield Foods promised to appeal, writing:
We are extremely disappointed by the verdict. We will appeal to the Fourth Circuit, and we are confident we will prevail. We believe the outcome would have been different if the court had allowed the jury to (1) visit the plaintiffs’ properties and the Kinlaw farm and (2) hear additional vital evidence, especially the results of our expert’s odor-monitoring tests. These lawsuits are an outrageous attack on animal agriculture, rural North Carolina and thousands of independent family farmers who own and operate contract farms. These farmers are apparently not safe from attack even if they fully comply with all federal, state and local laws and regulations. The lawsuits are a serious threat to a major industry, to North Carolina’s entire economy and to the jobs and livelihoods of tens of thousands of North Carolinians. From the beginning, the lawsuits have been nothing more than a money grab by a big litigation machine. Plaintiffs’ original lawyers promised potential plaintiffs a big payday. Those lawyers were condemned by a North Carolina state court for unethical practices. Plaintiffs’ counsel at trial relied heavily on anti-agriculture, anti-corporate rhetoric rather than the real facts in the case. These practices are abuses of our legal system, and we will continue to fight them.
Read the INDY’s investigative series on Big Pork in North Carolina here. Here is the jury”s verdict, for $50.75 million, equally divided among the ten plaintiffs. The verdict orders that each plaintiff receive $75,000 in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages. In a statement citing Smithfield’s attorney, spokeswoman Joyce Fitzpatrick argues that North Carolina law restricts punitive damages to no more than $250,000: “If a trier of fact returns a verdict for punitive damages in excess of the maximum amount … the trial court shall reduce the award and enter judgment for punitive damages in the maximum amount.”
Arkansasonline
By Mike Masterson
This article was published April 24, 2018 at 4:30 a.m.
After appealing the state's denial of a Regulation 5 permit in the Buffalo National River watershed, owners of C&H Hog Farms are trying to cover their interests by applying for another form of five-year permit.
Meanwhile, the C&H appeal winds on toward an August hearing before an administrative law judge. The factory continues operating on its expired Regulation 6 general permit while regularly spraying untold gallons of raw waste onto fields around Big Creek, a major tributary of the Buffalo.
At the risk of being obtusely technical (and thus boring) today, I'm relaying my understanding of what's happening with all this C&H permittin' and denyin' and reapplyin'.
C&H began operating in 2012 as the state's only holder of a Regulation 6 general permit. There also exists a Regulation 6 individual wastewater discharge permit. Both are issued by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (cough).
In determining compliance, the agency follows the USDA's Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook. The book contains technical federal environmental requirements that should be met for a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) like C&H to become permitted.
Such demands are especially relevant in a region whose karst-riddled subsurface is highly fractured, cavernous and filled with voids that allow groundwater to travel far and fast. Exercising such caution only reflects due diligence and common sense.
C&H's general permit expired in 2017. The Department of Environmental Quality by then had eliminated that particular permit altogether. C&H then applied for a CAFO-specific Regulation 5 permit which, among other favorable aspects to the factory, would have no expiration date.
While differing in some aspects from the Regulation 6 general permit, the Regulation 5 version was still subject to the field handbook's stringent requirements. Someone at Environmental Quality obviously regained their senses and realized the wastewater requirements exist for a reason and should be followed.
That left C&H owners holding the bag since for the first time they were told they had to conduct the groundwater flow testing and other demands. We are taking about some expensive and extensive (yet necessary) testing being enforced five years after it should have been done.
C&H's request for the new permit was properly denied because these specific requirements were missing from its application. The owners understandably cried foul. It wasn't their fault the agency had inexplicably failed to follow its own guidelines when issuing the permit in 2012.
So with Environmental Quality's general permit expired and discontinued, and the Regulation 5 application denied, C&H was left only with a Regulation 6 individual permit as a hopeful long-shot. However, that permit doesn't fit C&H's situation since its intended focus has been with industrial wastewater facilities rather than CAFOs.
So here we are awaiting results of the C&H appeal of the Regulation 5 denial and watching the CAFO's latest permitting attempt. The way I see it, those necessary requirements cited in the USDA handbook present a formidable hurdle that must be satisfactorily met if this factory is allowed to operate, period.
I do feel for the C&H owner/operators who were recruited and supported by Cargill Inc. and agricultural lobbyists into pioneering their CAFO into the heart of our sacred Buffalo watershed.
The owners did everything the state required. Several highly placed officials in the Department of Environmental Quality are responsible for allowing this fiasco by initially ignoring the USDA's prescribed actions designed to protect sensitive environments and ecosystems.
Because this monumental failure falls squarely on the agency's shoulders, the state should be willing to make these owners financially whole, then insist on a full cleanup and closure.
Even then, geoscientists familiar with the porous watershed fear the fractured ground beneath the factory and its spray fields already contains untold amounts of raw waste that have settled into subterranean voids, which could take a very long time to clear.
The USDA's regulations here are neither arbitrary nor vague. They exist for significant reasons, based on the known effects and science behind permitting any waste-generating factory.
At the same time, I'm pleased to see the Department of Environmental Quality finally step up and acknowledge it should have insisted on all relevant groundwater, geologic and lagoon safety issues being fully resolved when they should have been nearly six years ago.
Posted: April 23, 2018 at 4:30 a.m.
A focus group of six people has begun studying how the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality should implement its policy to protect the state's waters from degradation.
The department said in a statement that it will take the group's feedback to a stakeholder group on the Continuing Planning Process, a document that outlines how a state will implement its water-quality programs. The department has not updated it since 2000. It's required under the Clean Water Act, passed in 1975.
Also required under the act is an anti-degradation implementation plan. States write an anti-degradation policy and then must write an implementation plan for that policy. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Arkansas and New Mexico are the only two states without implementation plans.
Some members expressed in phone interviews interest in participating but didn't offer many specific details about what they would or wouldn't like to see in the plan.
"It's pretty simple why we would want to be on it," said Colene Gaston, attorney for the Beaver Water District in Northwest Arkansas. "To protect Beaver Lake."
Shon Simpson, owner of GMBc & Associates environmental and engineering firm, has worked on anti-degradation analyses for clients with water-discharge permits in other central states.
"My interest is that the policy is very clear," Simpson said.
The department asked Simpson to be on the focus group, along with John Bailey, director of environmental regulatory affairs for the Arkansas Farm Bureau.
Bailey said the Farm Bureau doesn't work with entities that would discharge directly into a body of water, but they work with people who apply animal waste to the ground, which could affect water quality. He said his position in the focus group would be to ensure best management practices for land application of waste remain in place for agricultural use but are also factored in for companies or utilities that might apply non-agricultural waste.
Bailey said the department had already put in a lot of work drafting a new anti-degradation policy and an anti-degradation implementation plan.
"It's a matter of getting into the weeds, making sure everything is thought through," he said.
Department officials presented an outline of a plan, including recommendations from the EPA, to the focus group April 5.
To comply with the Clean Water Act, the state must classify its water bodies by quality and significance in a tiered system.
Tier 3 waters, typically thought of as water bodies with exceptional recreational or ecological roles, aren't supposed to degrade at all.
Tier 2 waters are considered "high quality," with economic, public health or ecological value, according to the EPA. That means that when significant degradation -- more than 10 percent, according to the department's presentation -- is expected for such waters, water discharge permit applicants must offer an analysis of alternative discharge methods that would degrade the water body less or explain why economic or social conditions justify a more degrading discharge method.
Simpson said the state should define what it would consider a cost-effective alternative to the applicant's original proposal.
In Missouri, the permit applicant must use the cleaner alternative even if it costs up to 20 percent more.
The department's presentation also included Tier 2.5 waters -- a designation that is not outlined by the EPA but is used by many states and tribes, according to the EPA. The department's presentation described them as "exceptional high quality" waters -- specifically, domestic water supplies. In the presentation, Tier 2.5 waters, unlike Tier 2 waters, would never be allowed to degrade more than 10 percent.
In many states, Tier 2 waters are classified as such based on whether they are exceeding the water quality standards set for them. If they're not, they are Tier 1 waters. Simpson said he preferred this approach.
Tier 1 waters need only to maintain their designated uses, such as being a fishable or swimmable body of water.
The department has classified Tier 3 waters but not Tier 2 waters.
The department presented the plans of seven other states -- Arkansas' six neighbors and New Mexico, which is in the same EPA region -- to the focus group for study.
The group doesn't have a timeline for finishing its review and feedback on anti-degradation implementation, but members plan to meet next month.
The members are:
• Ellen Carpenter, an interested citizen and retired department water division chief.
• Colene Gaston, an attorney for the Beaver Water District.
• John Bailey, director of environmental regulatory affairs for the Arkansas Farm Bureau.
• Shon Simpson, owner of GMBc & Associates environmental and engineering firm.
• Anna Weeks, environmental policy coordinator at the Arkansas Public Policy Panel.
• Jim Malcolm, vice president and policy advisor at FTN Associates environmental and engineering firm.
Metro on 04/23/2018
Arkansas Times
C&H Hog Farms, the concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) near the Buffalo River that fattens pigs for slaughter for a Brazilian meat processing conglomerate, isn't going away without a fight. The D-G reports that C&H, currently operating under an expired permit, is applying for a different type of permit to operate its 6,500-swine facility after its application for a new permit was denied earlier this year. The Mt. Judea facility has been controversial since it was granted a CAFO permit in 2012. Critics allege that the original permitting process was flawed and violated the law, and that the more than 2 million gallons of manure and wastewater generated annually by the facility are an existential threat to the vulnerable terrain and ecosystem of the Buffalo River watershed. C&H was the only facility in the state ever to apply for a CAFO general permit, which was established in 2011. As a "general permit," it had less stringent requirements than "individual permits" that must be more specific regarding the details of the particular applicant. In April of 2016, the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality eliminated the CAFO general permit altogether. That same month, C&H applied for a different type of liquid animal waste permit, which was denied by the ADEQ more than eighteen months later in January 2018. In the mean time, C&H continued to operate under its old CAFO permit, which had technically expired in October 2016. It continues to operate under that old permit while it appeals the ADEQ's denial of the new permit. Now C&H is applying for an altogether different type of liquid animal waste permit — a five-year individual permit to operate its CAFO. The game here is to bog down the regulatory system in enough paperwork and processes to continue to operate despite no longer having an approved permit to do so.
A Newton County hog farm is continuing its fight to keep operating near the Buffalo River.
C&H Hog Farms has submitted application documents for a different type of operating permit, three months after another application was turned down.
If all of the documents are submitted and the application is approved by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, C&H Hog Farms would be able to continue operating under a five-year permit. The farm that houses 6,503 hogs is still operating under its expired permit while the owners appeal the department's denial of their application.
It was unclear Tuesday whether the hog farm had submitted its entire application. Messages left at the Department of Environmental Quality were not returned, and Jason Henson, a farm co-owner, and the other owners did not respond to messages seeking comment.
C&H Hog Farms has become a concern for environmental groups that fear manure could leak into and pollute the Buffalo National River.
The farm is on Big Creek, about 6 miles from where it flows into the Buffalo River, which had about 1.5 million visitors last year. C&H was the first and remains the only federally classified medium or large hog farm in the area.
Unlike the application denied earlier this year, the farmers' nutrient-management plan notes that it will maintain the number of hogs at 6,503 -- 2,503 hogs of 55 pounds or more and 4,000 pigs of less than 55 pounds. Their denied application proposed six boars of about 450 pounds apiece, 2,672 sows of at least 400 pounds each and 750 piglets of about 14 pounds each.
C&H is applying for a Regulation 6 individual permit, which is a wastewater discharge permit under federal regulations implemented by the Environmental Quality Department.
It's a different permit from the one the farm was originally permitted under, which was a Regulation 6 general permit, because conditions for individual permits are tailored to the facility and conditions for general ones assume what is appropriate based on similar facilities.
It's also different from the permit C&H applied for in 2016, which was a Regulation 5 individual permit under state water regulations.
State water regulations are supposed to be at least as strict as federal regulations.
All other hog farms in Arkansas are permitted under Regulation 5. C&H cannot apply to renew its Regulation 6 general permit because the state chose to discontinue the permitting program.
The farmers prefer a Regulation 5 permit and would close their application if they could get one, Henson wrote in an email that included the initial application packet Thursday night.
The farmers are awaiting an August trial before the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission to see if they can obtain or begin the process to obtain a Regulation 5 permit.
Richard Mays, an attorney for intervenors who oppose C&H in the case, said Tuesday that he and his clients were unaware C&H had applied for a Regulation 6 permit.
"They're trying to cover all their bases," he said.
Mays said he thinks the department can require whatever it wants of C&H and that the facility would likely face the same obstacles.
The Environmental Quality Department denied C&H Hog Farms an operating permit in part because the operation did not conduct a study on the flow direction of groundwater or develop an emergency action plan, according to the department's responses to public comments on the permit application.
The study and the plan were recommended by the Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook, and the department determined they were necessary because of the rocky karst terrain upon which the farm sits.
The permit application documents submitted Thursday do not appear to include an emergency action plan or a study on the groundwater, but it was unclear whether the documents filed at the department were the entirety of the application.
Henson wrote in his email Thursday that he would send more documents but was unable to send them all at once because of the size of the files.
C&H has asked the Pollution Control and Ecology Commission to allow it to argue that the department improperly denied the Regulation 5 permit.
The department has filed a motion to dismiss, and the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance and the Ozark Society have intervened.
In the application, the farmers said the operation generates about 2 million gallons of wastewater annually.
C&H has 630.7 acres to which it can apply the manure as fertilizer, they wrote.
The facility would have a holding pond that could contain nearly 2.4 million gallons of manure and a shallow pit that could contain nearly 800,000 gallons.
The application also includes numerous land-use contracts for potential application of manure and setback requirement waivers to apply manure up to neighbors' property lines.
C&H's operators also have explored expanding their hog production in Johnson County.
Metro on 04/18/2018
Posted: April 3, 2018 at 4:30 a.m.
As readers of this space know all too well, as with many, I am an unapologetic (some say fervent) supporter of protecting and preserving our country's first national river.
The spectacular Buffalo flows 150 scenic miles through God's country. This one-and-only stream is a treasure USA Today calls our state's greatest attraction that draws nearly 2 million visitors annually who leave behind about $78 million that supports the local and state economy.
Two coming public events will allow supporters to express their devotion. More on that below. First, valued readers, allow me yet another semi-rant.
To have needlessly threatened such a treasure due to our state's unfathomable malfeasance and negligence has been and remains a news story of national significance. At the same time, I also strongly support our state's farms and those who labor daily, making a living to provide our food. They are such a valuable part of many successes our state has enjoyed, as well as its heritage.
In light of the lobbyists' spin in pushing their own political interests, I often find it necessary to repeat my admiration and respect for those who farm. And of course they require the property and resources necessary to earn their living.
My only problem stems from science and experience, both of which have proved how the enormous amounts of waste from factory farms mislocated in sensitive watersheds can turn once beautiful rivers and streams into virtual dead zones. A simple Internet check of "concentrated animal feeding operations and water contamination" proves just how true and serious a problem this has become.
In the case of the C&H Hog Farms operating at Mount Judea with some 6,500 swine in our Buffalo National River watershed, my concern never has been with the owner/operators. I'll repeat just for clarity: Never.
Rather, I fault the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (cough) for ever allowing a good Newton County family to so quickly and conveniently set up shop five years ago in such a sacred and dangerously inappropriate region.
This department's administrators in 2012 also approved the factory's location without insisting first and foremost on a geologic study from its own staff of geologists.
It is indeed hard to believe, but not a single crucial geologic survey was required in this karst-riddled region before the agency issued the then-Cargill-supported factory a general operating permit.
Cargill sold its pork interests to Brazil's JBS (the world's largest meat packers), whose leaders have fallen under criminal investigation and charges of public corruption.
C&H's request for a revised operating permit was denied in January primarily for insufficient subsurface water-flow studies and matters of waste lagoon safety. But it continues spreading tons of raw waste under its expired original permit while appealing the denial.
So it's an appropriate period for reflection and discussion. And that's just what's planned for this Saturday, where any interested citizens can gather between 6 and 8 p.m. at Fayetteville's Mount Sequoya Conference Center, 150 N. Skyline Drive.
The forum will feature local and national experts explaining the purely scientific effects of factory farming on the state and nation's environment. (That's as opposed to the political spin and blather usually offered by obvious special interests.)
"Nowhere is this rapid, negative change more obvious and more destructive than the creation of massive ... CAFOs now polluting communities across the nation. Air quality is ruined. Well water is contaminated. Waterways are impaired. And the quality of life for America's rural residents is put at risk for long-term harm," say leaders of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance and the Socially Responsible Agricultural Project, who are sponsoring the evening.
"Right now, this threat is growing for the Buffalo National River. Moves are being made in Little Rock that would jeopardize the health and safety of America's 'First National River'--and the communities and economies of the residents who call the Buffalo their home," they add.
If you appreciate the river and music, 13 groups will spend the afternoon and evening of April 22 celebrating the Buffalo River and speaking on her behalf at the Revolution Music Room on President Clinton Avenue in Little Rock.
To their credit, every musician has donated their time to the public event.
So, for those looking for ways to support the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance (and I've seen there are thousands of you), mark it on your calendar as one good way to show your concern for a donation while enjoying a continuous stream of live music from 2 to 8:30 p.m.
Because the alliance operates on donations (unlike the deep pockets of special interests, believe it or not, to keep at least one hog factory in the Buffalo watershed) those who can't make either event yet want to help protect and preserve the river can send a tax-deductible contribution to the BRWA, P.O. Box 101, Jasper, Ark. 72641.
------------v------------
Mike Masterson is a longtime Arkansas journalist. Email him at mmasterson@arkansasonline.com.
Editorial on 04/03/2018
MIKE MASTERSON: A needless law Act 10 redundant By Mike Masterson Our new state law, Act 10 of the Second Extraordinary Session of 2018, which limits when the public can comment on permits previously issued to farms (animal factories), wasn't necessary because it needlessly codified existing Department of Environmental Quality regulations.
A proposed bill (floated before Act 10 was passed) had been actively pushed by the Farm Bureau soon after the agency denied the controversial C&H Hog Farms a revised permit to continue operating in the karst-riddled Buffalo National River watershed. That piece of special legislation wisely was rejected.
While some legislators insist its unnecessary act doesn't directly pertain to C&H, it does limit the public's ability to officially express views about such meat-producing factories once our state awards a Regulation 5 operating permit, even though such restrictions already were in force.
In plainest English, nothing significant has changed. Meanwhile, C&H's denied application for a Regulation 5 permit is pending appeal.
I asked Gordon Watkins, head of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, for his thoughts. "While I commend legislators who voted no on Act 10, I'm trying to gain a better understanding of reasons why someone would vote 'present,' or 'excused' as their conviction on such an important matter," he said.
Was this lawmaking exercise simply a diluted effort to pacify the politically influential Farm Bureau whose original bill (shepherded by Rep. DeAnn Vaught) somehow aimed toward protecting C&H? Some believe so. Legislators who voted against Act 10 must have realized that it, because of its obvious timing and content, was spurred by the C&H matter and overtly suppressive of the public's ability to address relevant concerns even after an official comment period closed.
"As we well know after over its five years of operation, because we did not comment when C&H was first issued its permit (due to ADEQ's practically non-existent public notice) under existing regulations," Watkins continued, "we were repeatedly denied the right to challenge anything other than occasional (Reg. 6) permit modifications. Act 10 just restates that fact as law. It was only when C&H applied for an entirely new (Reg. 5) permit, finally triggering a fresh public comment period after five years, that we finally were able to address the full extent of the permit.
"What's concerning to me is that the new law now codifies suppression of the public's right to challenge a permit that may be causing damage because of siting or location issues. For instance, let's say years after a permit is issued, something changes that reveals a problem. Perhaps new technology emerges, enabling better detection of environmental impacts.
Maybe geological features are found which pose a risk unknown when the permit was issued. ... This act makes it impossible to address those problems through official public comments. One would expect ADEQ to step in if violations occur. But excuse me if I lack full faith and confidence in ADEQ's willingness to properly address permit problems. As we've seen with C&H, it took the public to convince ADEQ to deny the revised permit application."
Watkins said Act 10 was vastly different from the initial Vaught draft bill, much to the disappointment of its special-interest sponsors. "But, as reported, [the lawmakers] had to do something to assuage concerns of bankers and permit holders who had been unduly stirred up by Farm Bureau. I'm sure the change was due to public outcry over the initial overruled attempt to craft legislation that would protect C&H. That was something cooler heads understood was unconstitutional and would be successfully challenged in court. "Mostly I think Act 10 is a waste of the Legislature's time and taxpayers' money. At least a handful could see that and voted against it."
Attorney Richard Mays of Heber Springs, who represents the watershed alliance, said legislators opposing the act apparently took time to read it and exercise their own judgment rather than relying solely on the representations of the bill's sponsors.
Because so many Arkansans are concerned for the welfare and future of our first national river and the insistence of our compliant Legislature to enact even a needless law, I decided to list and salute those with the moxie not to support Act 10, as well as those not voting or voting "present."
Senators against: Will Bond, Linda Chesterfield, Joyce Elliott, Keith Ingram, Uvalde Lindsey and David Sanders. Not voting: Eddie Cheatham, Jonathan Dismang, Missy Irvin and Bryan King. Excused from voting: Stephanie Flowers and Gary Stubblefield (the bill's Senate sponsor).
Representatives against: Eddie Armstrong, Andy Davis, Greg Leding, Rebecca Petty, Warwick Sabin and David Whitaker. Not voting: Charlie Collins, Joe Farrer, Vivian Flowers, Michael John Gray, Tim Lemons, Reginald Murdock and John Walker. Voting present: Fred Allen, Stephen Meeks, Clarke Tucker, Charles Blake, Milton Nicks Jr., Monte Hodges, Clint Penzo, Fredrick Love, Laurie Rushing, Stephen Magie, George McGill, James Sorvillo and James Sturch.
I'd suffer through with an excruciating hangnail rather than be excused, vote present or not even vote on a matter as important as being on record protecting Arkansas' golden goose. ------------v------------ Mike Masterson is a longtime Arkansas journalist. Email him at mmasterson@arkansasonline.com. Editorial on 03/27/2018
Hog farm allowedmore time for plan
Owners of a medium-size hog farm in Newton County that was taken to court last year by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality have until July 1 to finish clearing their stacking barns and submit a nutrient management plan, a judge ordered this month.
Patrick and Starlinda Sanders, owners of Sanders Farms just west of Western Grove, were previously ordered to submit a nutrient management plan for the hog manure and to clean up the barns by March 15.
By the end of February, they had submitted a temporary nutrient management plan, according to court filings. On March 1, the Sanderses asked for more time to complete a plan and to remove manure from their stacking sheds.
A week later, Boone County Circuit Judge Gail Inman-Campbell granted the request and set a trial for 10 a.m. July 19.
Sanders Farm, home to about 2,400 hogs, is operating without a permit in the Buffalo River watershed, but the owners are attempting to use a dry litter manure management system, which does not require a permit. Issues with hog overcrowding led to manure runoff from the farm last year, prompting the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality to ask the court to shut it down, which the court declined to do.
Buffalo River Watershed Alliance is a non profit 501(c)(3) organization
Copyright @ 2019
Contact Us